The best way to proceed is to give careful consideration to the donor’s critiques and decide whether you should reapply or not. Before you decide what to do, you need to determine whether the application is fixable.

How to Decide What to Do

• Contact the Program Officer for feedback. Ask him/her: (1) what his/her assessment of your proposal is; (2) whether the panel reviewers were enthusiastic about your idea; (3) if there are additional problems not addressed in the reviewer’s summary document sent to you; and (4) what your options may be.
• If the reviewers noted many fixable problems, it is good news, as it demonstrates that they are interested in your idea and that the application is worth fixing.
• If you have to revise more than 50% of your proposal, it is best to rewrite it altogether. If the revisions required are less extensive, then it is best to follow the rules for an amended application.
• If the scores of your proposal are strong, consider amending and resubmitting as soon as possible.

How You Should Proceed

• If your decision is to revise the original application, you should retain most of what you submitted, while addressing the reviewers’ concerns. That way, the next review group will look at the application in the context of the previous critiques and how you addressed them.
• In the resubmission, capitalize on your strengths and eliminate or revise the noted weaknesses.
• Respond to all reviewers’ comments and suggestions, even if you disagree with some. If you disagree, explain why and, if possible, provide additional information.
• Add new findings and make adjustments that you believe will strengthen your proposal.
• Address all items mentioned in the summary statement sent to you; however, remember that you are not limited to those.
• There is always the possibility of not resubmitting right away. The reasons might be: (1) you need to wait until you have the strongest possible application; and (2) you need time to polish your application.

Ultimately, the decision to resubmit depends on the various factors mentioned above. If the application has flaws outside of the idea itself, you should fix them and proceed with a resubmission. If, on the other hand, the idea is flawed, weak or not innovative, you should go back to the drawing board.

Most importantly, you should not be discouraged, as success rates for first submissions can be as low as 12%; thus, you are not alone. The encouraging news is that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has anecdotal evidence that applicants who resubmit have as much as 50% greater chance of being funded.

The post Proposal Rejection – Next Steps appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Every donor is unique. For example, the institutes that comprise the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have dissimilar missions, and each has its own culture and requirements. The same can be said of the Department of Defense (DoD) and a myriad of other donors. Chasing the money rather than good ideas is a major flaw. Donors do not fund those focused on money, they fund those who are passionate about a good idea that aligns with their goals. Consequently, here are the five things you need to know about the language and culture of any donor before you write:

• What are the priorities of the donor? Each donor has its own priorities. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) encourages interdisciplinary programs and transformative ideas, and their definition and characteristics appear on their website. The DoD has five major foci: peacekeeping and war-fighting efforts, homeland security, evacuation and humanitarian causes. Each of these subcategories has their own mission and language. Turning to foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation seeks to understand the world’s inequities. “Whether the challenge is low-yield crops in Africa or low graduation rates in Los Angeles, we listen and learn so we can identify pressing problems that get too little attention. Then we consider whether we can make a meaningful difference with our influence and our investments, whether it is a grant or a contract.” As this demonstrates, each donor clearly addresses their funding culture via their priorities.
• What is the mission of the donor? All donors have their own missions, which give us an understanding of how they visualize their funding priorities. For example, the NSF’s mission is: “To envision a nation that capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in advancing research and education.” The NIH’s mission is: “To seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.” The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) run by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command of DoD has a similar emphasis to NIH, but its mission is to relate health research to the armed forces. Even though both NIH and DoD fund innovative ideas to combat disease, their missions and foci are different.
• What have donors funded in the past and why? One of the best insights into a funding agency is who and what they funded in the past and how much money they awarded. Federal donors list abstracts of winning proposals, along with the name of the funded institution and the Principal Investigator/Project Director. Accordingly, we can instantly know who they consider credible and their focus. Foundations will often describe what they have funded in the past on their website. Their 990pf tax forms will also show how their funds were allocated. The decisive question for you to ask is how your idea and their funding patterns match.
• What are the evaluation criteria for awarding grants? How grants are evaluated is one of the best indicators of the donor’s culture. This will include the evaluation criteria, who the evaluators are and how they are chosen. For some donors, such as NIH and NSF, reviewer selection is not a blind process as reviewers who are chosen have a deep understanding of the agency culture. In the case of foundations, it is more difficult to discern who the reviewers are, but one good way is to understand the vision of the leadership and the makeup of the board, which will be reflected in the reviewers chosen.
• What is the language of the donor? In many cases donors speak different “languages”, which are in the same family of languages. For example, the various US Department of Education Title Programs (e.g. Title III or Title VI), address different topics. Some address underrepresented groups, others international and others centers of excellence. Similarly, NSF directorates and NIH institutes have different missions, speak to different audiences, and address their vision of the world on their own terms. It is these “languages” that need to be understood, spoken, and incorporated into grants in order to give you the competitive edge.

In conclusion, submitting similar proposals to different donors is a fatal flaw. In order to succeed, we have to understand first and seek to be understood secondly.

The post 5 Things to Know About the Language and Culture of a Grant Donor appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Lack of significance

To help reviewers better understand the significance of an application, investigators should make an effort to address the following questions: Why is the work important? How will it push the field forward? What is the potential long-term effect that this research will have on science and public health? If an applicant does not clearly articulate these points, reviewers will likely lose enthusiasm for the application. Ultimately, the applicant must present a convincing case that the proposed research is worthy of reaching the top of the competition.

Lack of original ideas

Even senior investigators may fall prey to the criticism that their proposal does not demonstrate innovation. When applying to the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant seekers should look at examples of what these agencies consider to be paradigm shifts in science. As a consequence, showing that you will address the current knowledge gaps in the field will go a long way in convincing the reviewers that you are making a real contribution.

Overambitious problem

Limiting your application to only a few Specific Aims/objectives keeps you clear of the very common mistake of being overly ambitious. It’s much better to think small and propose less than to do the opposite. Start broadly with an emphasis on significance, and then focus on your specific hypothesis, to be followed by methodology that the reviewers can readily assess. While you could design a project around two to four Specific Aims/objectives, most researchers recommend three.

Investigator does not have experience

Your qualifications lay the foundation for your grant-seeking efforts– whatever you write in your application is immaterial unless the reviewers deem you able to complete the work you propose. They will scrutinize your application for your credentials, publications, and presentations at scientific meetings to determine whether you are a new investigator or an experienced one breaking into a new field. You may need outside collaborators to round out the technical expertise that your research demands.

Lack of direction

Once you have developed your Specific Aims/objectives and you are confident that they are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound), what will be the experiments necessary to address those Aims/objectives? Note that your experimental design should convince the reviewers that you can reach your Aims/objectives. It will greatly help if you carefully consider the following questions: who, what, when, where, and how much money will you need to achieve your goal? Also, it is key to consider potential pitfalls or alternative approaches to your methodology.

In summary, to write a successful research proposal you need to: present a clear plan for carrying out your research, including your methodology and resources; and specifically address significance, innovation, direction, focus and experience.

The post Five Lethal Research Grant Flaws appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Not allowing sufficient time to write: Allowing enough time to do the research, effectively writing the proposal, and ensuring that all the letters of recommendation and forms requested are appropriately completed are key components to success. It has been demonstrated that those who submit their proposals three or more days prior to the deadline have a 37% greater chance of getting funded than those who submit at the last minute.
2. Not paying attention to instructions: It is extremely frustrating to be rejected for something as simple as margin width or font size, yet this is a common occurrence. 50% of the proposals that are submitted to various federal agencies are immediately eliminated because directions were not followed.
3. Poor writing: Grammatical errors are not the only sign of poor writing. There are many more, such as the use of acronyms and jargon, wordy sentences, long paragraphs, and making readers fish for the main reason the request is being made.
4. Failure to edit the application: This problem can easily be remedied if a prospective grantee gives his/her proposal to a qualified editor to proofread before submission. Although reviewers are not charged to score an application for grammar, poor writing reflects sloppy work and lack of attention to detail.
5. Failure to convey to the reviewers that your research is interesting: The Principal Investigator (PI) should be enthusiastic about the project. Lack of enthusiasm is contagious; reviewers will feel it and will lose interest in your project.
6. Lack of preliminary data or research: If you are writing a research grant, preliminary data is essential in proving that your hunch or hypothesis is plausible. If you are writing a project grant, thorough research of your subject matter is what makes your proposal credible.
7. Project that is too ambitious: Lack of focus is clearly reflected both in the scope, as well as the writing. Your preliminary data and research will be a good guide for how to narrow the focus of your proposal and do what is possible within the allotted time. Another good restrictive measurement is the budget.
8. Lack of experience in the field: The credibility of your proposal depends on those who will implement it. Thus, you must include the most qualified personnel. Reviewers are looking for project directors or principal investigators who are trained in their field, have succeeded with similar projects in the past, are recognized for their contributions, and have a proven record of efficiently working in a team.
9. Selecting a project that will have limited impact: A project that will have broad impact demonstrates that the money awarded will serve a large population that needs the intervention. Limited impact on the other hand, can be costly, not sustainable, and restricted to a small population.
10. Limited support from your institution: Institutional support demonstrates that your project is part of the institutional mission, and that it will be sustained in the future. Furthermore, projects that your institution financially and philosophically supports have a much greater chance of success.

Many of the aforementioned mistakes can easily be committed if you are in a rush. Knowing who you are, what you wish to accomplish, and delineating how you will accomplish your tasks is extremely important. Ultimately, professionalism, attention to detail, and enthusiasm will be the characteristics that will advance your proposal to the top of the competition.

The post 10 Errors That Will Disqualify Your Grant appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.